If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's fooking embarrassing that this city can't plan to put LRT stops where they need to go. It won't stop in the middle of the Manning power centre. It'll never to into SEC. It won't stop in Windermere. Edmonton talks so much about TOD, but every single development in this city, past, current, and future, is designed for cars and then we hack the LRT on where we can, not where we should, at some later date to middling effectiveness and horrendous cost.

Should the city be encouraging sprawling outskirts of town like Manning, South Edmonton Common, or Windemere? Outskirts of town will NEVER get strong municipal services or transportation because development should be near downtown and mature neighbourhoods IMO. So the city seems to be making it as hard as possible to live/operate there, and as easy as possible to build infill near downtown.

Problem with stops in places like SEC or Windermere, these areas are anything but pedestrian friendly. For example even if they could locate a stop right in the heart of SEC it would still be quite a walk to most businesses in the area.

It's fooking embarrassing that this city can't plan to put LRT stops where they need to go. It won't stop in the middle of the Manning power centre. It'll never to into SEC. It won't stop in Windermere. Edmonton talks so much about TOD, but every single development in this city, past, current, and future, is designed for cars and then we hack the LRT on where we can, not where we should, at some later date to middling effectiveness and horrendous cost.

Should the city be encouraging sprawling outskirts of town like Manning, South Edmonton Common, or Windemere? Outskirts of town will NEVER get strong municipal services or transportation because development should be near downtown and mature neighbourhoods IMO. So the city seems to be making it as hard as possible to live/operate there, and as easy as possible to build infill near downtown.

I keep hearing things like this, but then I scratch my head. Why? Why does it have to be like that, in YOUR opinion? Why should people be forced to live near downtown? For the majority of people in this city, they do not work downtown, or near downtown. They work on ... the outskirts of the city and further out in the region. Why shouldn't we have good transit service and other city services? We pay property taxes just like folks in the central part of the city. If I were to live in the central part of the city, I would be FURTHER away from my work, causing me to use more roads, spend more time commuting, etc.
This post of yours is a prime example of the mentality that c2e suffers from. If you were to make up a city based on the false perceptions this forum perpetrates, there would be only downtown and strathcona, and the few communities around it, and everything else is just a suburban waste land where no one should ever live, and those that do should suffer because this forum thinks all jobs and reason to live are located in the downtown core. Good thing reality is a lot different than what this forums hivemind seems to think it is.

Edmonton has a lot of different employment areas; Downtown, University, West Edmonton Mall, NAIT and many industrial areas. It makes for a wider area. Mill Woods is past the SE industrial area, and LRT will do a lot to connect these areas more.

As much as infill presents potential areas for renewal, we have to ask if the motive is more residents, or greater profits for developers. These infill houses are quite expensive. If you have a young family, you will choose a less expensive neighbourhood.

As much as infill presents potential areas for renewal, we have to ask if the motive is more residents, or greater profits for developers. These infill houses are quite expensive. If you have a young family, you will choose a less expensive neighbourhood.

Is it not in the City's interest to have efficient land use? Developers make a profit, yes, by building mid-rise and 20+ storey buildings to house people closer to the core. Which from the City's point-of-view makes sense for taxes, infrastructure, utilities, land use. The LRT isn't a spur for lot splitting and "skinny homes".

W.P Wagner = William Phillip Wagner, former Edmonton Public School Superintendent.

Pfft! No. W. R. Wagner = Wilhelm Richard Wagner, renowned operatic composer. In fact, Ride of the Valkyries shall be played incessantly at Davies Station as part of the art installation. Truly befitting of an elevated line.

It does...Those who need transit. Those who do not....Personally, I'd rather have a CHOICE not have it stolen from me.

Mass Transit indirectly benefits you if you don't use it like most things that your tax dollars goto. It takes thousands of cars daily off your roads, lowers the incremental cost of remediation on those roads over the span of centuries, reduces the carbon put into the atmosphere (which means cleaner air to breath), and helps a city develop town centres which can create localized density from community to community.

I suggest going and ready about how the Carbon Tax was structured. There's a reason why it now has industry confidence and is actually one of the few good taxes. If you don't like it, the Dominican Republic is known for having low taxes so you could always relocate to the Caribbean.

There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

It does...Those who need transit. Those who do not....Personally, I'd rather have a CHOICE not have it stolen from me.

Mass Transit indirectly benefits you if you don't use it like most things that your tax dollars goto. It takes thousands of cars daily off your roads, lowers the incremental cost of remediation on those roads over the span of centuries, reduces the carbon put into the atmosphere (which means cleaner air to breath), and helps a city develop town centres which can create localized density from community to community.

I suggest going and ready about how the Carbon Tax was structured. There's a reason why it now has industry confidence and is actually one of the few good taxes. If you don't like it, the Dominican Republic is known for having low taxes so you could always relocate to the Caribbean.

actually, with a street level lrt, it means more vehicles will be stuck in traffic idling, burning more fuel, which will result in the need to buy more gas, which will result in more cash for the carbon tax, which will help fund more street level lrt. the circle of life!!!

It does...Those who need transit. Those who do not....Personally, I'd rather have a CHOICE not have it stolen from me.

Mass Transit indirectly benefits you if you don't use it like most things that your tax dollars goto. It takes thousands of cars daily off your roads, lowers the incremental cost of remediation on those roads over the span of centuries, reduces the carbon put into the atmosphere (which means cleaner air to breath), and helps a city develop town centres which can create localized density from community to community.

I suggest going and ready about how the Carbon Tax was structured. There's a reason why it now has industry confidence and is actually one of the few good taxes. If you don't like it, the Dominican Republic is known for having low taxes so you could always relocate to the Caribbean.

actually, with a street level lrt, it means more vehicles will be stuck in traffic idling, burning more fuel, which will result in the need to buy more gas, which will result in more cash for the carbon tax, which will help fund more street level lrt. the circle of life!!!

:P

The concern I have with the report they put out on the impact of the Valley Line is that the high volume traffic areas are already problematic. I dunno if you've taken that 83st left turn for example during rush hour but it can easily take 4-5 minutes to get through as it is. At the very least. each of these trains as the capacity of taking 100's of vehicles off the road and people themselves have options for adapting their driving patterns. So even though it's a "take it to the chin" kinda thing, we have to actually see the line in practice before making a judgement on the cost-benefit analysis.

The fact that that survey came out so late (due to a non-disclosure agreement) makes me think this city needs to review how it sends it's projects for tender. Councillors should have been aware of it long before shovels went to the ground.

There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

The line is really low tech. We are going to get the same ugly overhead wires and support lines that some posters hated it the trolley lines. I am in Bordeaux France and they have a completely wireless low floor tram system.

Looks like we are getting very expensive dated transit technology...

Edmonton underachieves again!

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

As for overhead lines, I just wish the Mill Woods line would run as fast a TGV which also has overhead lines. Okay I realize even fast subway/commuter rail systems run only about 80 MPH, it would be nice if the Mill Woods line would run 80 km/h for most of the suburb distance.

Way too many stops along this line. Davis station/Hollyrood/Bonnie Doon/Churchill should be enough.

Which would make sense if you had localized populations along your route. In the case of Edmonton, the way to serve the point of the LRT (removing cars from the road and maximizing ridership) would be frequent stops allowing people along the entire line to be within walking distance of a transit stop.

I wasn't always a huge fan of low floor systems but the more I study it in practice within different cities, the more I see why it's a decent system.

There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

The environment was one of the main talking points of the Valley line lrt (cars off the road) and half an hour trip from Mill woods, Churchill is in line with other lrt lines in the city. My point was mainly the speeds of Valley because of the many stations along its path and with less stops along the way. Also, by having fewer stops along Valley would have been completed earlier.

Valley line's low floor cars are going to be great, even with overhead lines. If the stations were above grade like Campus station the Valley line stations would have been more costly and would have taken longer to complete this line.

The nice thing about the Valley Line is that there's little interference with main thoroughfares between Whyte Avenue and downtown, and again between Argyll and Whitemud. 75 Street is packed between 98 Avenue and Whitemud Drive.

Oh just wait until phase 2 when it cuts over to the north side of 104 Ave and then completely fuqs up 109 St. It's already nearly impossible to get through 104 at 109 St on a slow day, it's going to be a shitshow.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

Oh just wait until phase 2 when it cuts over to the north side of 104 Ave and then completely fuqs up 109 St. It's already nearly impossible to get through 104 at 109 St on a slow day, it's going to be a shitshow.

And that's entirely due to the High Level Bridge and the intersection at the South end of it that is a major choke point. That won't be impacted, so I can't see how it will make it any worse. The choke point is kilometers away.

The nice thing about the Valley Line is that there's little interference with main thoroughfares between Whyte Avenue and downtown, and again between Argyll and Whitemud. 75 Street is packed between 98 Avenue and Whitemud Drive.

An unintended benefit of these north south lines is that drivers can use the adjacent streets for in effect throughfare proprietary passage. For instance on 111th st its now easier to use that as a corridor provided you do not have to cross 111st. The signalling is such that if you get timing with a train going same direction you get greens all the way from Southgate to 87ave. What used to be a series of uncoordinated light has been forced to be coordinated. Its an example of how much more traffic can move along a corridor if you have coordinated lighting.

Similarly with the Valley line 66/75st all the way from 28ave to Argyll will be a more efficient commute. I wonder how many drivers will follow the LRT ROW all along now to the Dt.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

Oh just wait until phase 2 when it cuts over to the north side of 104 Ave and then completely fuqs up 109 St. It's already nearly impossible to get through 104 at 109 St on a slow day, it's going to be a shitshow.

Please tell me there is still time to grade separate at 109 St 104 Ave intersection

Oh just wait until phase 2 when it cuts over to the north side of 104 Ave and then completely fuqs up 109 St. It's already nearly impossible to get through 104 at 109 St on a slow day, it's going to be a shitshow.

Please tell me there is still time to grade separate at 109 St 104 Ave intersection

reading the mayor's blog, he doesn't mention it at all.
time to make it an election issue.

People complained about the old trolley lines obscuring the sky. In every rendering of the new streetcar lines I have seen, either their is no overhead lines illustrated or just a single wire overhead.

I have been in Europe all month and the number of support wires is almost as common as the old trolley lines. People are going to be disappointed.

Meanwhile here in Bordeaux, they have a completely wireless tram system here.

I wonder why we are getting old technology for our 'new' system?

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

We're getting what we're getting because that's what maximizes the profitability of the private companies that'll be running the Valley Line. If new tech costs more but they can't offload that cost to the public purse, the private companies aren't going to even entertain the idea as that's counter to their very raison d'etre: to provide maximum benefit to their shareholders.

Giving less of a damn than everů Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

^The City did consider making the P3 RFP for a system that included sections with no wires - but they decided it would cost more (it would). It has nothing to do with the profitability of the companies doing the proposals, they would have made the same profit if that system had been chosen, it would have just cost more - its adding more complexity to the trains and to the system.

Because it costs a lot more money, it can be looked at later though (as has been shown, the system there changed). Nice to see you are finally becoming a low floor LRT fan though.

Nope

Wrong again.

The River Valley line will offer only the slightest improvement in tranit time over buses at a ridiculous cost and confounding traffic at choke points.

We could have just bought a 100 vehicle fleet of low floor, articulated modern electric trolleys to use on the 127km network Edmonton had, reconfigured the turns from 30 degree to 15 degree segments like other cities use to prevent dewiring. Then expand the system to Northgate, poles were already in place, and to Millwood with the pverpass at Argyll, with cross connections to Southgate and Whyte Ave. Would have saved a bundle and provided an effective and efficency transit network instead of a single slow line.

Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 20-09-2017 at 01:08 PM.

Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

Does not look a slow line to me, looks like genuine LRT. The trolley bus system has been replicated by regular buses just fine. This system, with proper grade separation, is going to be just as successful as the existing south/north line.

In the same video there are no overheads. I'm sure over time We're going to end up with something similar

And how many hundreds of millions will converting the system cost? I don't think that the Bombardier fleet is adaptable to wireless like Alstom. The system has many design patents.

First of all ground level power supply is nothing new. Even Bordeaux was using "the technology" up until 1958 and last I heard from a colleague currently living near Bordeaux told me that overhead LRV lines are/were/is, used only in the outlying areas. Actualy Bombardier has a more efficient, effective system it advocates, through its PRIMOVE system. You can read about Bombardier's PRIMOVE system here:

Does not look a slow line to me, looks like genuine LRT. The trolley bus system has been replicated by regular buses just fine. This system, with proper grade separation, is going to be just as successful as the existing south/north line.

But it doesn't have proper grade separation for the majority of the line....

And that's what I've been saying all along. proper grade separation at busy intersections... but moahunter only hears "High floor LRT" as if still engaged in the high floor vs low floor debate from 7+ years ago.

Nevermind that the south line is a pain in the *** for anyone else... but guess with the mentality that public transit should make anyone who isnt riding it lives worse then I guess it was a success just like the Nait line lol.

What will be more difficult is East West travel. What will be invariably easier is South-North travel which befits most common commutes.

So the line will impede regional trips like pick up kids from school or soccer practice, but will make the typical work commute easier. As I mentioned before lights get synchronized anytime you are alongside a train. Its an advantage hardly anybody speaks of but I prefer 111st since the LRT. Engineers were now finally forced to synchro the lights. So that one goes from Southgate to 87ave with ease. I've even done the stretch with no reds. That would never happen before through that stretch. The other thing it does is timing PRIORITIZE the lighting for the South North corridor and something that should have been occurring anyway and that the city doesn't seem to understand.

Essentially LRT routes become proprietary signalled routes for both drivers and the trains. Its not all negative for drivers with the advent of trains. 66/75 will become a better driving route. Less clogged with red lights from feeder avenues.

When transportation lines are clearly drawn, corridor routes get priority over feeder or less used crossing routes. That is positive in moving most people.

Last edited by Replacement; 22-09-2017 at 11:08 AM.

"if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"